Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daft Punk discography/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Daft Punk discography edit

Nominator(s): Phil roc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it exhaustively covers Daft Punk's releases since the start of their career in 1994, including remixes, production credits and music videos. It is also accessible and reliably sourced wherever possible. I believe that all concerns from the past two failed nominations have been properly addressed. Phil roc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"French electronic music duo Daft Punk has" / "Daft Punk released their second studio album" - so is Daft Punk singular or plural? Pick one and be consistent
"They subsequently recorded several demo tracks with each other" => "They subsequently recorded several demo tracks together" would be better
"Indo Silver Club" needs a reference as it didn't chart anywhere
That's all I've got. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All addressed, thanks for your comments! Phil roc (c) 20:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect standard for tables (for example separate columns for "Released" or "Label"). Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Eurohunter - These differences are to comply with MOS:ACCESS as per the article's peer review. If I recall correctly there isn't a specific standard stating that the details all have to be in one column. Philroc (c) 21:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Philroc: It need to follow standard from previous nominations. Eurohunter (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Eurohunter: I still don't understand how a slightly different table format that WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't explictly prohibit is a significant issue, though I'm glad to be corrected since this is my first FLC. Requesting a second opinion. Philroc (c) 23:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Philroc: There are only 10 charts in tables due to space limitation. If add additional columns it takes that space. US Dance chart should be replaced with another national chart as there is already main US chart in the table. ""—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory." should be included in tables where it's neeeded. I'm not sure if "Production and remix credits" should be included in the discography. Eurohunter (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Eurohunter: "There are only 10 charts in tables due to space limitation. If add additional columns it takes that space."
        The extra columns may take up more space, but they help simplify the tables and make them easier to understand for those using screen readers to access Wikipedia.
        Don't gues so otherwise it would be a standard but it isn't. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "US Dance chart should be replaced with another national chart as there is already main US chart in the table."
        The US Dance/Electronic Albums chart is a component chart of the main Billboard 200 listing which DISCOGSTYLE does allow to be included. Daft Punk was significantly more popular in this chart than the latter chart; for example, Human After All only reached number 63 on the Billboard 200 but topped the Dance/Electronic Albums chart.
        Dance/Electronic Albums is very little chart in comparision to Billboard 200 that's why they had better positions and that's not argument. You could also pull out UK Dance etc. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "'"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.' should be included in tables where it's neeeded."
        This notice is already included at the top of each table in the article.
        Shouldn't be there. Should be in the table at the end. Look at other featured discographies. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "I'm not sure if 'Production and remix credits' should be included in the discography."
        As far as I know anything that contains a credit to an artist is OK for inclusion in their discography article. Phil roc (c) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Someone mentioned in my FLC that it shouldn't be there. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Doing a random sampling of sources here to check for accuracy. Refs 87 and 89 appear to be broken and should be fixed. The majority of refs are simply citing numbers and having checked about ten of these they've all been accurate.

Ref 1--Going by Google Translate here but this seems to have been used accurately. Not usually keen to see several consecutive invocations of the same reference when it can just be appended once at the end, but that's really just personal preference.
Ref 6--Mentions nothing of being a "landmark album in the genre", but is a valid source for the claim that it "brought worldwide attention to progressive house music". Needs rewritten or further sourced
Ref 7--Accurate
Ref 15--Used accurately
Ref 16--Fine

Seems fine to me as regards sourcing; just one issue with ref 6 listed above there. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 20:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: All fixed. Phil roc (c) 23:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the citations to Amazon. Is there another source with the info?
The link to the image of the back cover of "Harder Better Faster Stronger" is a copyvio --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Are you referring to the original track or the Alive 2007 version? Philroc (c) 15:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Philroc: my statement is true for all images of the packaging. The fact that they are on Discogs doesn't change the fact that hosting the images has copyright problems and it violates the WP:NFCC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Guerillero: Thanks for informing me, all Discogs links have been removed. Phil roc (c) 22:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

I believe that "Production and remix credits" lists all songs that Daft Punk produced/remixed, which is different from writing the songs. For instance, "Heartbreaker" was solely produced by Daft Punk but you added another 4 persons as co-producers in the table but there is no source for that, and I think they were only wongwriters and not producers.

For "Stronger", Daft Punk did not produce that song and the ref you are using does not say it either, Daft Punk only co-wrote it.

"Gust of Wind", again, Daft Punk did not produce it and only wrote it. And the article you are using as ref does not say that either, it only says they are featured on the song which is not clear enough; you need to find another source.

~~"I Gotta Try You Girl" (Daft Punk edit) is the only song on the table that has Daft Punk listed as co-producers, which I don't understand why.~~ Fixed
I find "...denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory" a bit distracting, maybe it could be incorporated in the tables, the same way as, for instance, Lady Gaga discography. Just a suggestion though.

@Mymis: I was told during the article's peer review that embedding the notices inside the tables violates WP:ACCESS, though I'm open to the possibility that the reviewer (3family6) may have been misguided. Phil roc (c) 23:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding, yes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table headers are apparently problematic for screen readers, so I would assume that putting the notice about charting in as a footer is equally a problem.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 3family6, that policy only mentions cases when tables have headers in the middle of a table instead of splitting them into two which probably does influence accessability, which is not the case in this article at all. However, it probably does not make much difference. Mymis (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that an editor who is deeply familiar with WP:ACCESS edited Lecrae discography to comply, and they moved the notice out of the table into the text.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: Well, because someone did something in some other article is probably not a valid rationale.. But I guess it is fine either way so not an issue. Mymis (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last note. In the intro, you added "In the United States, the album debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 with first-week sales of 339,000 copies." Unclear why you chose to single this fact out about how it charted in the U.S. when Daft Punk are not American. I would replace that sentence saying it became their first album to reach no 1 in France (which is their native country) and stayed there for three consecutive weeks, which is a more notable fact to mention about that album. Mymis (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Done Phil roc (c) 14:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article, you have my support. Mymis (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 3family6

The use of rowspan for things like albums and release dates is difficult for some screenreaders, and thus this page, like many, many other discography pages is probably not in compliance with MOS:ACCESS. It looks prettier to have the rowspan, but it's not as accessible. Izno has provided guidance for me on this issue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Found nothing to pick at. ~ HAL 333 00:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.